I'm working on mapping out my future layout which includes a station like the one for NJ Transit in Hoboken, NJ. It requires double slip switches, many regular switches, and there will be access to both tracks, in either direction, from the station. How difficult would this be to wire for DCC? I doubt you could just connect one set of powered wires to the whole thing, or could you? What about insulated frogs, etc. Thanks.
Here's a view of the yard and the tracks that lead to the 2 tracks.
Here's a close up of the switching before the station so the trains can get access to both tracks in either direction.
The N scale section of my website is now uploaded with a lot of various things. Check it out: www.CarlettaTrains.com
If all frogs are insulated, but metal so tehy can be powered, you CAN just hook one set of feeders to the whole mess. I would have MANY feeders. ANd since slow speeds are to be expected, you can pwoer the frogs with frog juicers from Tam Valley. That way each frog would automatically get the correct olarity as the trains rolled through.
The wye portion will require isolation and autoreversers, although you could possible just make the entire yard (and all those crossovers) the insolated section and power it all from an autoreverser.
I do advise some selective compression here - even in N scale that trackwork will take up a LOT of space. Not to mention the shear complexity of it all.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I agree with Randy, but just to add a few thoughts, do you really need the second crossovers at the top and bottom, to the right of the wye? They don't seem necessary.
Also, as Randy pointed out, the wye is a reversing section, requiring an auto-reverser. But all of the other track work is in phase. Yet, feeders on every end of every turnout would ensure optimal performance.
Are you thinking about power routing turnouts like Peco Insulfrogs? You might be better off with turnouts that powered on all routes at all times. Avoid Electrofrogs altogether.
You could power the frogs, but you might try first to operate the layout without them.
Rich
Alton Junction
Only reason I suggest powering the frogs is a) it's N scale and b) it's a terminal where things will be moving slow. But, it's not hard to do after the fact, especially if you drop the feeders for them during installation. If it works, great. If not, the wires are right there and ready to hook up.
On the real thing, those seemingly duplicated bits of trackwork did serve a purpose, that is a very busy terminal. Even in N scale though, all those tracks, that wye is easily a 4x8, maybe bigger. Depending on how long the legs end up being. I'd use nothing smaller than a #6 to handle the passenger cars. Single track on each leg and thus reduce some of the crossovers. It would have the look and feel, just not be exactly accurate. Unless this is for a large club and the idea is to duplicate real track arrangements as much as possible. It sure would be impressive. Just - large.
Yep, I have to agree, Randy, it probably wouldn't hurt to drop feeders from the frogs before laying the track. I never do on my layout, using Atlas Custom Line turnouts almost exclusively. But, then, my motive power is HO scale, and I have very few short wheelbase locos, mostly S1 and S3 diesel switchers. That said, powering those frogs and maintaining proper polarity is an added challenge.
To clarify my remark on those duplicate crossovers, I have included the OP's track plan, marking those duplicate crossovers in red. They serve no useful function being adjacent to one another because two locos cannot use those adjacent crossovers at the same time. At some point, they would collide.
richhotrainI agree with Randy, but just to add a few thoughts, do you really need the second crossovers at the top and bottom, to the right of the wye? They don't seem necessary.
Yes. look closely, the trackwork to the left of this location is a crossing not a double slip switch. Why a double slip was not used is a question, but you see similar trackage at JAY tower on the LIRR.
Only that left leg of the wye needs protection as a reversing section.
Railroad of LION does not bother to power the frogs. Him does not bother to power ANY of the crossovers at all, him as 48 wheel pickup makes wiring an easy thing, but single locomotives will not be able to cross.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion richhotrain I agree with Randy, but just to add a few thoughts, do you really need the second crossovers at the top and bottom, to the right of the wye? They don't seem necessary. Yes. look closely, the trackwork to the left of this location is a crossing not a double slip switch. Why a double slip was not used is a question, but you see similar trackage at JAY tower on the LIRR.
richhotrain I agree with Randy, but just to add a few thoughts, do you really need the second crossovers at the top and bottom, to the right of the wye? They don't seem necessary.
So if it is, indeed, a crossing, then there would be no access to those two outer tracks without those 'duplicate' crossovers.
WB
I agree with Randy on powering the frogs, or at least dropping the frog feeders during construction just in case. How are you planning to drive the turnouts? If you're using Tortoises, the contacts for powering frogs are free. You can buy an adapter for Peco machines to accomplish the same thing, but those really need to be added during the tracklaying process.
I would look into some method of providing route control, and some panel indicators or signals to show turnout positions. I am building a staging yard right now, and I've used a DS-44 stationary decoder to drive the 4 turnouts. I'll see how it is after I've got my lighted schematic installed, but I already miss having toggles and being forced to operate the turnouts with the throttle.
I like the complexity of the terminal with all the double-slips and crossovers. Yes, it's long, but it's also narrow. I'd say go for it.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
richhotrain Yep, I have to agree, Randy, it probably wouldn't hurt to drop feeders from the frogs before laying the track. I never do on my layout, using Atlas Custom Line turnouts almost exclusively. But, then, my motive power is HO scale, and I have very few short wheelbase locos, mostly S1 and S3 diesel switchers. That said, powering those frogs and maintaining proper polarity is an added challenge. To clarify my remark on those duplicate crossovers, I have included the OP's track plan, marking those duplicate crossovers in red. They serve no useful function being adjacent to one another because two locos cannot use those adjacent crossovers at the same time. At some point, they would collide. Rich
I'll look at just the bottom on - but with that extra crossover there, a train could move to/from the 3rd to 5th track up from the bottom ont he right, to/from the bottom track while another train could move to/from one of the top 4 tracks to/from the second track from the bottom. Without the red crossover at the bottom, one of those trains would have to wait for the other.
This is, though, a prime example of what I meant by simplifying or selectively compressing things - unless the same level of traffic density is going to happen on the model, those extra crossovers could be eliminated without reducing the actual functionality of being able to get from any track to any other track - if two trains needed to run through there, one would have to wait.
LION's explanation of those left-most crossovers actually being crossings would explain the need for the set of crossovers to the right, marked in red.
But, I am having a hard time understanding your routings, Randy, so I numbered the tracks for clarity. Tell us again, using the numbered tracks, how a second set of crossovers would be useful in this track diagram.
WITH the red crossover in place between 6 and 9, one train can go 9-6 while at the same time, another train can go 6-3. At the same time
Take out the 6-9 red crossover, and now only one train at a time can run on those routes - the train going from 6-3 would mean the one on 9 would have to hold to get to 6 until it was clear. or vice-versa, if the 9-6 train got there first, the one trying to go 6-3 would have to wait, the cingle point of contention being that slip in 6.
I'm assuming those a double slips because if they are cimply crossings, very little of it make sense because you can;t get from many of the tracks on the right to any combination of 1, 4, 6, or 9 without those being slips. With or without the ones marked in red.
ahh, yes, I see what you are saying now. Glad I numbered those tracks.
I was going to make the same observation. With crossovers only on the left side of tracks 4 and 6 you cannot get on to tracks 4 and 6 from all of the yard tracks.
The track plan reminds me of one or two of the old yard photos from Shorpy.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I would also consider substituting a double slip for the two 'Y's in the center of the diagram. That will allow the overall length to be shortened a bit and it will also eliminate an 'S' curve.
I see now. I'd need those cross overs to the left of the red marks to be double slips to enable trains from tracks 1 - 4 to get to the leads to 6 and 9 and to get tracks 5 - 0 onto track 4. Besides wanting every station track to be accessable from every incomoming/outboun track to the main to be availabe, I also wanted to somewhat model the complexity of the real thing. If I change those crossovers to double slips then I no longer need the switches marked in red. That being said, I would keep them for the visual complexity they provide.
The area in the picture where all the switching would take place is 3 feet lony and 1 foot wide. This would be a 6 - 8 foot extionsion, depending on space.
I've worked in DC my whole life and I know how I could block this out for that, but I am completely unfamiliar with DCC. I know I'll need to do a ton of research on DCC when the time comes, but right now I'm trying to design what I want and will then see if I should go DC or DCC for the layout. If this would be electrically simple for DCC then I'd want to go that route. I have no problem wiring the same polarity to the same tracks to boost the signal, but when it starts getting into needing other electronic comoponents, that's where I have a feeling I will get in over my head.
I don't have it infront of me right now, but I believe the turnouts are 4.43" and are 15 degrees. While the trains may not look completely realistic as they go through the switches, the should still be able to navigate them fine and it allows me to do this task in as little space as possible while still being operational.
I was thinking of going for a combination of Atlas 2065 under the table switch machine, some tortoise, and Peco switching machines which get mounted directly to the switch (if I use any Peco tournouts in the end). I've used them all except Tortoise so feel free to weigh in with suggestions keeping in mind that there are a lot of switch tracks and my funds aren't endless. Being that this will all be so within reach, I could always keep some, like the ones hilighted, as manual switches with simple ground throws.
My main concern here is, for someone who has done NOTHING with DCC, how impossible is this to achieve?
KisNap,
I really like that track configuration, and it is quite similar to the track configuration that I am contemplating for my 10-track Dearborn station in Chicago. I operate in HO scale on a DCC powered layout.
Other than the wye being a reversing section, requiring either a DPDT switch (DC) or auto-reverser (DCC) to flip polarities, the wiring is pretty straight forward for DCC.
As for switching devices, manual ground throws, Atlas under-table, Tortoises, Pecos, whatever, one thing to keep in my is that, in N scale, the space underneath that track configuration (or on the layout itself for manual ground throws) is severely limited, so any switching device is going to be tricky, especially considering the number of switching devices needed.
My suggestion would be to use Peco turnouts and Peco double slips. Peco turnouts come with a spring loaded set of points, so you can use your finger to throw the switch (straight versus divergent). Use of Peco turnouts, without the need for switching devices, would eliminate the concern for fitting those switching devices in tight spaces. And, it would eliminate the need for a lot of extra wiring and switch controls. Something to think about.
If you go with Peco, you then need to consider whether to purchase Insulfrog (isolated plastic frog) or Electrofrog (live metal frog). Unless you absolutely need to power the frogs, my advice is to keep it simple and use Insulfrogs. Then, you simply wire every end of every turnout to defeat the "power routing" feature of Peco turnouts.
The Atlas under-table machines are designed to be mounted on 3/4 inch plywood with roadbed. The throwbar on the ones I've seen is plastic, and just over an inch long. I could be shortened, but those who have tried to extend it have not had much success.
For the price ($21.95 MSRP) you could go with Tortoises.
Since a Tortoise is a "stall motor" machine, current is always flowing through it. One benefit of this is that you can simply wire a dual-color LED in series with the Tortoise and it will give you a position indicator "for free" without even using the two SPDT contacts already provided. I use one set of contacts to power frogs, which still gives me an extra set for signals even after I've got my position indicators taken care of.
If there was ever a design screaming for DCC this is it.
I was hoping to use all code 80 rails as some of the locomotives I'd like to use aren't code 55 friendly. Whay about the Fleischmann or Minitrix double slip switches? Do any of them act like the Peco turnouts? I have some regular code 80 Peco turnouts on my current layout so I know what you mean where they'll hold their position and external pieces are not required, but what about the other companies I just mentioned? With the setup I have, it is always possible to use those unfriendly locomotives, I just couldn't run them through the double slips. The other locos I have would work though.
KisNap, I cannot answer you question about Fleischmann or Minitrix double slip switches. If you did decide to use Peco Code 55 turnouts and double slips, you could always assign those unfriendly locos to those 4 tracks that don't cross the double slips. Too bad that Peco doesn't make Code 80 double slips.